memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= Organizations I propose the creation of a supercategory "Organizations" -- this would basically be any group, including governments, corporations, militaries, teams, etc. Form *Supercategory: Category:Organizations -- this category contains all organizations articles in a list **Subcategories can be added at will from the following: ***Category:Governments ***Category:Corporations ***Category:Agencies -- covering both militaries, and governmental sub-agencies ****Category:Military units -- proposed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions ***additional categories for other groups as they become identified -- i'm not sure if we have enough articles relevant for a Category:Music groups or Category:Sports teams, *** Category:Religions might be a possibility The question about this suggestion is -- should all these articles still be contained in the master category, or should we leave the supercategory containing only articles about "miscellaneous groups" that don't fall into any of the subcategories -- or would it even be preferable to create additional subcategory Category:Miscellaneous groups. Additionally, subcategories of major groups can and will be created upon suggestion and vote here -- once Category:Agencies has been approved, Category:Starfleet, Category:Tal Shiar, etcetera can be contained in it. :I don't recommend putting any articles in Category:Starfleet or any other organization at this level, however, because an additional tree structure must be discussed -- to prevent double listing articles that fall under both '''UFP' and Starfleet.'' There are a lot of organizations that may be deserving of a category heading -- this level will form a major portion of our tree structure if it is approved. Once approved, it will be easy to create multiple categories by writing one sample category makeup -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) :(I'm not sure where this came from, but it didn't belong with the paragraph previously attached with it, so I am putting it here.) --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Subcategories based on military or service organizations, agencies, (Category:Organizations; Category:Agencies; etc), will use the form "NAME personnel". Former members who move on to other exploits may be double categorized. Members of sub-agencies or units that are able to be listed like that should also be categorized like that. -- for example, Spock is both in Starfleet personnel, and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. *Subcategories based on species should take the form of their list article (people) -- the species name in plural (Category:Vulcans, humans, etc). Hybrids should be double categorized. *Subcategories based on Category:Governments or Category:Regions could take the form NAME citizens or NAME residents, i'm open for suggestions on this one if anyone has a better idea for final terminology. See also * Category talk:Energy * Category talk:Explosives * Category talk:Military personnel * Category talk:Slang * Category talk:Terminology =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Spacecraft categories There are many problems with the way spacecraft are catogorized. Many spacecraft that do not qualify as starships, like Apollo 11 and Enterprise (OV-101), are in Category:Starships and linked to Starship. Also, Category:Starships is a sub-cat of Category:Starship classifications, which just seems stupid. Category:Starship classifications itself contains unqualified members. Also, the same problem as the lists of individuals, categories like Klingon starships are not linked to anything else Klingon. That is, however, a problem outside the scope of the changes I am proposing. I propose that the spacecraft categories be restructured like so: * Category:Technology? ** Category:Spacecraft *** Category:Probes **** Voyager 6, Nomad, Friendship 1, MIDAS array,... *** Category:Manned Crewed spacecraft **** Ares IV, Orbital 1, Enterprise (OV-101),... **** Category:Starships **** Category:Shuttles (although many shuttles basically qualify as starships) **** Category:Space stations Comments? --Bp 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) :This is a big problem. In addition to the examples that Bp pointed out, there are also a number of sublight ships that have been lumped into other "starship" categories. For example, the Bajoran interceptor is in Category:Bajoran starship classes, which makes no sense, as it is not a starship. Our entire system for categorizing space vehicles of all kinds is in need of serious work. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) * Our category tree is really only now getting hammered out, so with regards of the starship classification category, where it is is really just a placeholder until we can get our ducks in a row. With that said, we had this discussion some time ago, regarding the SS Botany Bay, which is apparently something you've both overlooked, considering the fact that it is on the discussion page for the category in question. There, this site, and Cid too, has agreed that a starship is defined as any ship capable of space travel. Although my argument at the time originally paralleled yours, the fact remains, this sites definition of a starship remains the same: "a type of vehicle that is capable of supporting a crew traveling over interstellar distances." Which I've come to understand as acceptable. Now regardless if it is warp capable or not, and without limitiations on the distance of how "capable of..traveling over instellar distances" it is, if it can travel in space, whether faster or slower than the speed of light, it is still a starship. I would however, like to add, that I would not be opposed to a subcategory of starships for a "sublight starships" category, but I don't like the "manned spacecraft" qualifier riff raff. --Alan del Beccio 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) **There is nothing "interstellar" about Ares IV, Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101). Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101) can't even travel to another planet, let alone another star system. Also, probes do not fit into starships, thats why they are classified in spacecraft in the proposal. I read the talk page you mentioned, and there was no real conclusion. Also, you didn't really address the problem of Starship being a Starship classification. --Bp 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Thanks for linking that past discussion, Alan. However, I'd like to point out that the definition on Starship itself has changed since then, from "most are FTL" to "are FTL". At the moment, I can't really tell if this is because some evidence has been brought up in the past 18 months to contradict the former definition, or if someone just felt like changing that - however, the definition should be consistent between this page and its use in a category. Also, Bp is correct, any vessel that isn't even "interstellar" (FTL or not) shouldn't be on that list according to the current definition. Morale of this story: Find a consistent definition of "starship" first, and then change categorization accordingly. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Partial oppose: we're currently having a discussion on IRC (Bp and me), and we obviously disagree on what exactly "craft" means. I think that in the term "spacecraft", "craft" refers to "boat, ship" specifically, whereas Bp thinks that it's rather the definition of "being crafted" that applies here. Using his POV, "space station" would be a valid sub of "spacecraft" (but so would many other things that are crafted and in space), using my POV, it obviously wouldn't and should be a sub of "Technology" instead, just as it is at the moment. So, for the moment, I'm opposing the proposed "Space station" categorization. Help us out, here... ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ** "Craft" refers to a skill. Writing is a craft, painting is a craft. An aircraft, or watercraft is called that becuase it was skillfully designed to operate in the air or on the water. A space station is a spacecraft in the same way. The word "spacecraft" by itself does not imply that the object moves, only that it was designed for operation in space. Probes, Ships, Stations all fall into that category. --Bp 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ***What is Bp on about? Craft refers to boat or ship, I don't know what has him thinking otherwise. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ****To clarifiy, "craft" can refer to both, "a skill" and "boat, ship (also plural)", depending on context - see, for example this dictionary.com page. Words can have more than one meaning, obviously... it's just the question which one applies in this context, and I still believe it is the definition of a craft being "a ship or other vessel (#5)". -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *****But the ship or vessel was originally called a craft because of it's skilled design and construction, not it's movement. They are two meanings, but the second meaning is derived from the first. The word craft used in aircraft, watercraft, spacecraft does not mean movement, only design and construction for the specific purpose of air or water or space operation. That the operation of a ship, one type of craft, requires movement does not mean that all *craft NEED to move. --Bp 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::I decided to look in a dictionary, and I think you are wrong Bp: ::::a vehicle or device designed for '''travel' or operation outside the earth's atmosphere'' :::Deep Space 9 was not designed for travel. Spacedock does not travel. ISS does not travel. Space Stations do not travel any more than your local gas station travels. They are something you go to, not something that you use to go around in. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ::::"A vehicle or device designed for travel or operation". Your dictionary definition already agrees with me. A space station is designed for operation outside the Earth's atmosphere. --Bp 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :::To quote a particularly eloquente Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe, "NUTS!" --OuroborosCobra talk 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ---- For the record: I still don't like "spacecraft" itself, but apparently it is used for stations. I haven't said anything about "manned" spacecraft (that was Alan), but now that I was made aware of it I agree, it sounds stupid. "Crewed" isn't better, though - among other things, because it would also include the other subcategories "starships", "shuttles" and "space stations". Just leave that category out completely (yes, that's a definitive oppose) and sort all "other" items to the main category. More later, after I had some sleep... :) -- Cid Highwind 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) * I think this discussion would be better moved/held at talk:Starship because what seems clear here is that we have yet to be able to define our "craft". --Alan del Beccio 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Earth subcategories Another new subcategory to the overcrowded Earth cat, called Category:Earth agencies for all those secret services (like KGB), armed forces (like Luftwaffe) etc. Kennelly 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC) :Although noone seems to agree (?), another good subcategory would be Category:Earth currencies I think. Kennelly 15:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Unnamed species * I suggest we create an unnamed species category as a subcategory for species to compliment the already existing unnamed individuals category. Federation 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Technical Difficulties Category:Technical Difficulties would just be a place for pages like Warp_core_breach, Hull breach, and Neutron fatigue to call home. With all the technobabble and problems the Enterprise(s), Voyager, Defiant, and Deep Space 9 run into, I don't see how this wouldn't be a full category. --''6/6'' ''Neural Transceiver'' 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :I do support a category for such events, but I'm not crazy about the name... unfortunately, I currently have no ideas for another name... --From Andoria with Love 11:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I'm not married to the name either, just wanted a place to put these articles and others like it. --''6/6'' ''Neural Transceiver'' 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC) ::Support, with a better name. -- Renegade54 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC) :::It just occured to me that some of these topics might even better be moved to their respective main article, don't you think? Why do we have a separate article about the failure of technology X, instead of just a section in the article about that technology? -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Medical Subcategory to Scientists I propose a subcat to Category:Scientists for all medical practitioners like Beverly Crusher, Selar etc., I think there are enough of them. Kennelly 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Production POV categories Production Stuff Artists ;Category:Production artists Another sub-category of Category:Production staff for such people as artists, whether book covers, comics, or set decoration. -- Sulfur 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :Comment: This might be better suited as its own seperate category if its going to be for books and the like, as those products are seperate from those officially licensed by Paramount Pictures and therefore not involving the production staff from the shows or films. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) The other possibility there is to have a couple of "artist" categories, one for books, comics, etc (which are still officially licensed by Paramount), and one for the set decorators, painters, etc. Regardless, we do need one for artists, we have a right stack of them now. -- Sulfur 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) * I almost did it, but you know, it just won't work with this name. These individuals are not really involved in the actual production of the Star Trek series; they are all non-canon supplemental contributors. --Alan del Beccio 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': We now have Category:Star Trek publication artists. --From Andoria with Love 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Star Trek music As suggested by Sulfur here, this category (possibly a sub of Category:Star Trek) would contain Category:Composers (shared with Category:Production staff) and Category:Soundtracks as sub-categories. --From Andoria with Love 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC) :Support this one. :) Definitely a sub of Star Trek, and Soundtracks and Composers would become subs of this one. -- Sulfur 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Holodeck Episodes A category listing episodes that contained the holodeck/holosuite as the main plot or a major plot point, but not nessisarily just used briefly. I.e. "The Big Goodbye" but not "Encounter at Farpoint". --UTS DeLorean 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) *'Comment': I'm not saying no, I'm just questioning whether there are enough of these to warrant a category. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Maintenance categories Category:Real world POV To put on the "RealWorld" template, as I've seen it pop up on several articles that it shouldn't, and as far as I can tell There's no way to keep track of where it is. - AJ Halliwell 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :We already have Category:Star Trek, a category that was first suggested as Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found), then agreed upon using that name as production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise. The "Realworld" template also was initially suggested as a template for "Meta-Trek" articles, so that template and the existing category should be placed on the same pages - ideally by replacing existing category links with the template first and then adding the category to the template. I oppose creating yet another category just because there's a controversy about what exactly might constitute "Meta-Trek"... -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :Note: The "Star Trek" category already has several sub-categories, so perhaps it should not be added automatically by the template. It's safe to say, however, that any article that is in "Star Trek", or a subcategory of that, should probably have the "Meta Trek"/"Production"/"Realworld" template. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I wasn't involved in that particular political debate- I just want a way to see what pages have the Template on them (such as the PNA articles) because I know of at least two episodes they've been added to, several novels, and some things that should be from an In-universe POV. (IE: If someone put the Realworld template on Cardassia.) I know Cardassia doesn't constitute "Meta-Trek"... - AJ Halliwell 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :And now you're officially a part of that debate... because others think that this template should be added to all novel and episode pages, for example. Congratulations... ;) :On the other hand, I don't think categories are generally a good idea if the rationale for them is "to find out on which pages a template doesn't belong". I think the "What links here" of that template would be a much better tool (that doesn't confuse readers at the same time) in this case. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Production staff and Performers (subcat of Prod staff) We seem to have a growing number images for the production staff (such as Image:Maggie Schpak.jpg) so I suggest "Category:Memory Alpha images (production staff)" or (Production staff), or something similar. - AJ Halliwell 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC) * I wonder if we should broaden the scope of this so as to include all images of individuals who are not "in character". I notice there is an image of Avery Brooks on his page of him looking all bad-ass like Shaft (shut yo' mouth!) that really doesn't fit into any of the categories we currently have, including this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) * Support disambiguating non-character images of individuals in this fashion. --From Andoria with Love 07:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC) *'Support'. -- Renegade54 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC) *'Support', I'm with Alan in that the name doesn't suggest performers to me, but a quick poll on IRC showed that I was definitely in the minority. One suggestion I had was a subcategory of production staff, Category:Memory Alpha images (performers), just to distinguish them. -- Sulfur 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *I support Sulfur's idea. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *I support Enzo's idea to support Sulfur's idea. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Technology For pictures of stuff like Tricorders, Phasers and maybe even ATMs.--UTS DeLorean 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC) *'Support', we have a ton of technology pictures and we need to sort them. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *'Comment', I guess I support this for now, but it should probably be broken down into more sub cats, like "Medical instruments", or something. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Aenar Another species subcategory, such as Category:Memory Alpha images (Andorians), this would be for Aenar, such as Category:Memory Alpha images (Aenar). We have at least 10 images on our list thus far, which is more than we've started with for some other species subcategories. -- Sulfur 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *We have a good amount of Aenar pictures, which qualifies it for a subcat. Support. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Publicity Images/Advertising These would be for posters, advertisements, and so forth for Star Trek materials. I've started a list (but got distracted after adding just the Movie Posters... :) ). Just the movie posters means 11 images already though. -- Sulfur 15:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *Just like technology, we also have a ton of images related to these kind of materials. Definite support. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)